Malcolm X gave up his life for what he believed to be the true practice of Islam, namely peace, tolerance, and love. Malcolm X was a true martyr, because he was killed by others, instead of killing oneself at the expense of others. Muhammad Atta believed himself to be a martyr of Islam, by killing himself in battle against the "Great Satan." Out of the two, who was the better Muslim? Whose actions more closely exemplified the spirit and overall message of the Koran?

Look at pre-Enlightenment Christianity, when there was no separation between church and state. It could be described as a "militant religion." That Islamic culture is behind us in its historical development would not necessarily mean that the core of the Islamic faith is violent and radical. That is the point I intend to make, not that Islam itself is a true religion.

This is an unmoderated forum, so please avoid personal attacks, otherwise it be moved to "Free For All," where it would probably get derailed. This is a topic that does not specifically deal with American politics. This is a thread to civilly state your opinion, but not for engaging in heated argument.

Malcolm X was a communist revolutionary and enemy of western civilization; to say nothing of being a member of the satanic cult known as Islam. He was a traitor against the Republic and an enemy of the American people. He epitomized everything that was evil and wrong about the world in which he lived, there are few, save Lucifer, who have had fewer redeeming qualities.

There, now it's political (as though it's possible to discuss Malcolm X without discussing politics).

If you are wishing to approach this from a scholarly point of view, scholars don't judge which branch of a religion is the "true" one.

They do judge which one is closer to the original intent of the faith. Most Islamic scholars denounce suicide terrorism as violating the Koran and Islam's prohibitions against suicide and the killing of innocents.

That Islamic culture is behind us in its historical development would not necessarily mean that the core of the Islamic faith is violent and radical. That is the point I intend to make, not that Islam itself is a true religion.

Which Islam? There are several major branches with wildly different understandings of Islam. Do you even know of the different sects and their beliefs?

Note you said Islamic scholars - hence my point that to secular scholars it is neither here nor there which understanding of Islam is the "true" one.

They still would consider which one more closely follows the original message of the Koran, given how the practice of Islam has so influenced the course of history. From a historical standpoint, it's important to understand which branch has more diverged from the original faith. It's like how most secular historians would make the judgement on whether or not the Mormon movement follows the original message of early Christianity.

Except that most Sufis don't consider themselves to be a different sect, rather an order within their respective branch (think religious orders within Catholicism). Interesting you didn't any of the different legal schools within Sunni Islam... I guess you haven't gotten to that wikipedia article yet.

Quote

Though the majority of Islamic governments may be oppressive and militant, the same could be said for past Christian governments.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

If the point you wish to argue is that Malcom X is a more authentic expression of Islam than Muhammad Atta, the way to do so would be to cite Hadiths and Qu'ranic verses (with refrence to commentaries) in comparison to Atta and Malcom X.

Quote

Let's move this to the politics forum so I can really tell Chamberlain777 what I think of this BS.

I second the motion. In fact let's go a step further and ask for the creation of a private M777 forum in which just one member has access and that is the only forum in which he may start threads...

Malcolm X was a communist revolutionary and enemy of western civilization; to say nothing of being a member of the satanic cult known as Islam. He was a traitor against the Republic and an enemy of the American people. He epitomized everything that was evil and wrong about the world in which he lived, there are few, save Lucifer, who have had fewer redeeming qualities.

There, now it's political (as though it's possible to discuss Malcolm X without discussing politics).

Asking whether Malcolm X or Muhammad Atta was a better Muslim is like asking whether Cesare Borgia or Benito Mussolini was a better Italian. It's a pointless question.

I would venture to say, however, that Averroes was a better Muslim than either.

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov

I find it amazing that an Oriental Orthodox Christian would have a muslim thug like Malcom X in his signature. "A true martyr for Islam?" What the hell does that mean?

I find it amazing that you can go from Saint Severus of Antioch to Malcolm X so quickly.

But, by all means, go ahead. Disregard all those holy icons you could have in your signature. Instead, keep in place a representative of that bastardous Christian heresy that invaded Egypt and now occupies Constantinople and half of Armenia.

Lord God, have mercy upon Your servants, all of us.

Logged

My soul waits for the LordMore than those who watch for the morning.Yes, more than those who watch for the morning.

I am devoutly Indian Orthodox, and I recognize that one of the reasons why the Church of India has lasted in such a religiously diverse nation as India, where the majority is not Christian, is its policy of religious tolerance and respect for pluralism. The same attitude, if I'm not mistaken, is shared by Eastern Orthodoxy:

Quote

Orthodox Christian people most often live in societies of cultural, linguistic and religious pluralism. For that reason, the Orthodox have developed an attitude of respect for others, and a tolerance and understanding for people of other faiths. The Orthodox Church does not have an Ã¢â‚¬Å“officialÃ¢â‚¬Â pronouncement expressing the attitude toward other religions. However, Orthodoxy has a long-standing tradition showing respect and tolerance for people of other faiths. It is well-stated by an Orthodox Christian theologian and Archbishop, Anastasios Yannoulatos, of Albania, that, Ã¢â‚¬Å“being created in the image of God, every human being is our brother and sister.Ã¢â‚¬Â

It is a strong Orthodox view that our commitment to the Christian truth claim must affirm a pluralistic democratic setting for all people to live in peace and harmony. Orthodoxy holds fast to the truth of Christianity and defends the right of other religious expressions to co-exist in harmony in a democratic system where the law equally protects all.

The question of truth is of highest importance to Orthodoxy. Ã¢â‚¬Å“What is Truth?Ã¢â‚¬Â Pontius Pilate asked (John 18:38). Christ kept silent. Christians interpret this silence a His reply that the Ã¢â‚¬Å“TruthÃ¢â‚¬Â was standing before him-Christ is the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Truth.Ã¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“TruthÃ¢â‚¬Â makes reference to the knowledge of being. Tolerance Ã¢â‚¬Å“implies a certain relationship of religious faith with truth in every concrete manifestation in the world, whether national political or sociologicalÃ¢â‚¬Â (Damaskinos Papandreou, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Truth and Tolerance in OrthodoxyÃ¢â‚¬Â). The source of all truth is God the Creator, who gives existence to all beings. God is the originator and the human being is the receiver.

For Orthodoxy there is a fusion between the truth claim of Christianity and a mandate for tolerance. We may say that one cannot be a Christian if he/ she does not embrace the doctrine of tolerance as a mandate of Christian love.http://www.goarch.org/print/en/ourfaith/article8075.asp

Read Malcolm's biography. -- Muslim thug does not apply. Many white (I assume you are white) are misinformed about Malcolm X, who in his later years, repented (if I can use that word) of his beliefs in the Nation of Islam. His true mission was to elevate the black people in this country to receive theor just rights under the law and enjoy the freedom's that the constitution of the US afforded them. I often think that if the Orthodox church would have been more welcoming to blacks in that era that he would be an Orthodox Christian convert. He was martyred more in a Christian sense in giving his life for a just cause not in an attempt to destroy others and cause nations to change their policies.

Right On Malcom!

Logged

Save us o' Son of God, who art risen from the dead, as we sing to thee Alleluia!

His true mission was to elevate the black people in this country to receive theor just rights under the law and enjoy the freedom's that the constitution of the US afforded them.

Yet he converted to a religion which prescribes death for converting away from, he made a pilgrimage to Mecca (a city in which Christians are not allowed) and in a country which Christians have no legal standing, cannot practice their religion or even show publicly symbols of their faith.

Wondering about the latest rising star Barak Obama (not a political discussion here please). They say he is the son of an African Muslim father and a Christian mother and is a practicing "christian" of whatever faith? If this is true then possibly he could be considered an "apostate" by Islam and the subject of a "fatwa". Could be an interesting development

Look at pre-Enlightenment Christianity, when there was no separation between church and state. It could be described as a "militant religion." That Islamic culture is behind us in its historical development would not necessarily mean that the core of the Islamic faith is violent and radical. That is the point I intend to make, not that Islam itself is a true religion.

Yeah, there was the Byzantine empire, and the growing state of the Russian Tsar; however, you cannot equate these things that occured in Orthodox history to the caliphate and implementation of Shari'a in the 'ummah. These things in Orthodox history, at least in my opinion, are not a part of the faith itself, nor of the ultimate doctrinal/canonical Tradition. Sure, the Emperors of Byzantium did indeed influence some formation of liturgy, and to this day we can see in many Greek Orthodox churches the double-headed eagle of Byzantium. However, these are merely occurances and not static incidents - and to take them in the same political context as Islam (which is intrinsically theocratic, right down to its very doctrine) would be wrong.

Perhaps if youre referring to the caesero-papism of the Roman Catholic Church, in relation to Islam, then yeah you got a definite link there. However, monarchy is not inherrent in Orthodoxy - whatever IS inherrent in Orthodoxy, as far as political alliances are concerned, is definitely a moot point. But, the point remains that this "state and church" union we saw in Byzantium and Russia cannot be equated with Islam's need for a international dominance of Shari'a (or just simply Islam).

As far as militancy is concerned, there are examples of this in the Byzantine state and church union (handling of Jews, monophysites). Then again, we have to assess whether these examples are reflective of "render unto Caeser what is Caeser's" vs. a Caeserization of Byzantine Orthodox mindset.

If I'm not making myself clear, main point is just: Islam = theocracy and the doctrinal origin of this theocratic mindset Ã¢â€°Â the Christian Emperors and their doctrinal origin. Thus, Islam sucks.

I think that Thanatos has a good point here, Matthew. There is a significant difference between a religion which actively condones conversion through coercive means, or putting apostates to death (even in it's holy book); and a religion which might sometimes might be (ab)used, or might be the beneficiary of secular goings on, but which doesn't directly and consistently condone using coercive conversion tactics (though some, like Augustine, seemed to be a bit more permissive of such tactics).

There is a significant difference between a religion which actively condones conversion through coercive means, or putting apostates to death (even in it's holy book); and a religion which might sometimes might be (ab)used, or might be the beneficiary of secular goings on, but which doesn't directly and consistently condone using coercive conversion tactics

Only Sola Scriptura protestants could claim that for their branch of Christianity (even then they'd run into problems with the Old Testament). In Orthodoxy we have Holy Tradition in which Justinian, Nicholas II et al. are venerated as saints. The thing is, most Orthodox people simply ignore that part of our Tradition in favour of other parts.

There is a significant difference between a religion which actively condones conversion through coercive means, or putting apostates to death (even in it's holy book); and a religion which might sometimes might be (ab)used, or might be the beneficiary of secular goings on, but which doesn't directly and consistently condone using coercive conversion tactics (though some, like Augustine, seemed to be a bit more permissive of such tactics).

These passages have been used to justify oppression by Christian rulers:

Romans 13 1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscienceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

1 Peter 2 13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.

Titus 3:1Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work,

Ok, you've convinced me. One more reason not to be Christian. Good job.

But I am a Christian! For every Justinian there is a St. Silouan the Athonite... and notice who is included in anthologies like the Gerontikon, Philokalia etc - that is the real inner ethos of the Christian spiritual life.

My only contention here is: don't create second rate polemics against Islam that are easily turned around against Christianity.

Apart from his faith, I admire Malcolm X the man. Regardless of the more henious tenents of Islam, to my knowledge Malcolm did not practice them. Remember his aim in life was to a large extent political, that is to elevate the black man - - -by any means necessary. All of us who are commenting here have the luxury of having grown up white and not have been subject to racism and classism or many of the other isms out there.

There are not enough black Orthodox Christian converts! (new thread)

Logged

Save us o' Son of God, who art risen from the dead, as we sing to thee Alleluia!

Only Sola Scriptura protestants could claim that for their branch of Christianity (even then they'd run into problems with the Old Testament). In Orthodoxy we have Holy Tradition in which Justinian, Nicholas II et al. are venerated as saints. The thing is, most Orthodox people simply ignore that part of our Tradition in favour of other parts.

I certainly don't ignore the veneration of the great Emperor St Justinian, who was glorified for many reasons, and the veneration of St Nicholas the Tsar, who while a horrible emperor, was a pious man. I don't see the reason to take these figures out of their historical context and judge them anachronistically. I see a big difference between these figures in their historical context and Islam in its essence.

I certainly don't ignore the veneration of the great Emperor St Justinian, who was glorified for many reasons, and the veneration of St Nicholas the Tsar, who while a horrible emperor, was a pious man.

How can a truly pious man act so viciously as a ruler? You cannot divorce a man's faith from his public policy.

That may be true in the United States, but the Ethopian Orthodox Church has existed for centuries.

He mentioned converts, not born members.

Quote

How can a truly pious man act so viciously as a ruler? You cannot divorce a man's faith from his public policy.

How was he any more vicious than any other ruler at any point in time? He was an amazing ruler, and a brilliant theologian. Remember, we are not living in make-believe land where everyone is always nice; we are talking about the 500's in the vicious, rough, Eastern Roman Empire, where life was vicious and tough, and the only way to rule was by extreme and harsh members. Anything less than that would have resulted in the empire crumbling.

Quote

Please elaborate.

I will if you will tell me what books you have already read on the topic. If you have read anything substantial, then I will be interested in discussing the matter further, as I am at a busy point in my life and have to narrow down what I chat about online.

I will if you will tell me what books you have already read on the topic. If you have read anything substantial, then I will be interested in discussing the matter further, as I am at a busy point in my life and have to narrow down what I chat about online.

I've read the Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, which discusses in detail that brutality of the Chalcedonian party. I see little difference between this and the behavior of contemporary Islamic governments.

I've read the Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, which discusses in detail that brutality of the Chalcedonian party. I see little difference between this and the behavior of contemporary Islamic governments.

So you haven't read any Lewis? He was of course roundly condemned by Said. Said, however, was considered an academic flake by many, but his book Orientalism was a major work. Lewis seems more firmly grounded to me in a historical sense. Fouad Ajami looks interesting to me but I haven't had the time to read his Dream Palace of the Arabs. The book History of Islamic Societies is definitely on my Amazon wish list. that's the kind of stuff I was looking for--whether you have any idea of the history of Islam and Arab culture.

As for your comparison between the Chalcedonian party and modern Islamic governments, thanks for proving my point: Christian governments don't act like that ANYMORE. Things have to be judged by the contemporary world.

I certainly don't ignore the veneration of the great Emperor St Justinian, who was glorified for many reasons, and the veneration of St Nicholas the Tsar, who while a horrible emperor, was a pious man.

God save us from pious men then. I really don't think the cult of Justinian is that big. I looked him up in the Prolog of Ohrid and amazingly enough it claimed he was a Serb. The HTM Horologion gave him a different date. To be honest in the last five years, I don't remember a single parish in the area serving liturgy for his feast. So practically speaking he is forgotten, or more accurately only the positives are remembered.

As for Nicholas II, even by the standards of his time (like the ever ancient 20th century) he was the most backwards and despotic ruler in Europe (or in second place if you include the Ottoman Empire). He stiffled the Church and invoked his divine right to rule in an effort the thwart any reform efforts. Had he been able to reform the Russian Empire he easily could have transitioned Russia into a modern nation, rather than communism. That being said, his cult is one of selective memory of the warm and fuzzy (even pious while his population suffered under his tyranny) Nicholas. So while you claim to venerate him and remember him (as do many others), nobody is putting that into actual practice.

It is easy to venerate such "pious" men in twenty first century America.

As for your comparison between the Chalcedonian party and modern Islamic governments, thanks for proving my point: Christian governments don't act like that ANYMORE. Things have to be judged by the contemporary world.

But what is the reason for this transformation of Christian governments? Was it a return to the Gospel message in its simplicity or the European enlightenment?

As for Christian governments, the civil rights of Orthodox people in some of old Warsaw Pact and newly made EU nations aren't looking so great. My point being, giving political power to Christians even in modern times can be a scary thing (and thinking about it, I'm not sure that Islamism is any worse of a state to under than something like the WWII era Croatia).

These passages have been used to justify oppression by Christian rulers:

Romans 13 1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscienceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

1 Peter 2 13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.

Titus 3:1Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work,

Peace.

How are any of those passages applicable to Christian rulers? St. Paul is talking from the perspective of a citizen, not a ruler - and hopes that who he is writing to, understands their civic duties.

The fact that St. Paul is talking to submit to "any" authority (he does not specify what type of authority or structure of government) demonstrates how open Christianity is able to coexist with other forms of government (except, of course, philosophies founded upon atheism - that may be a problem); in other words, Christianity is not intrinsically monarchial or theocratic, as opposed to Islam. This rings clear, particularly in Titus 3:1 which you quoted.

If I missed the point, anyone, I'm sorry. But I don't see how these can go for Christian rulers?

God save us from pious men then. I really don't think the cult of Justinian is that big. I looked him up in the Prolog of Ohrid and amazingly enough it claimed he was a Serb. The HTM Horologion gave him a different date. To be honest in the last five years, I don't remember a single parish in the area serving liturgy for his feast. So practically speaking he is forgotten, or more accurately only the positives are remembered.

I certainly do not think he is someone to promote like the holy ascetic fathers or great missionaries like St Cyril and Methodius. But his novellas and theological work, and the 5th ecumenical council, his reigning in of the weak and distrusted Pope Vigilius, are all things that benefited the Church, and his expansion of the Roman empire against the barbarians was important to preserve the peace of the Church. I don't advocate promoting his cultus, but rather am just reacting against people insulting his memory with anachronistic arguments.

Quote

As for Nicholas II, even by the standards of his time (like the ever ancient 20th century) he was the most backwards and despotic ruler in Europe (or in second place if you include the Ottoman Empire). He stiffled the Church and invoked his divine right to rule in an effort the thwart any reform efforts. Had he been able to reform the Russian Empire he easily could have transitioned Russia into a modern nation, rather than communism. That being said, his cult is one of selective memory of the warm and fuzzy (even pious while his population suffered under his tyranny) Nicholas. So while you claim to venerate him and remember him (as do many others), nobody is putting that into actual practice.

I don't actively venerate him and am troubled by some of his decisions but at the same time he seemed to be between a rock and a hard place and was doing the best he could. I don't think he was glorified for his great ruling ability at any rate, but the fact that the Church chose to glorify him means I accept it.

Quote

It is easy to venerate such "pious" men in twenty first century America.

It's also easy to criticize all sorts of things in 21st c. America, and create such extreme dichotomies between "spiritually pure" and "politically corrupted" ideas of the Church.

As for Nicholas II, even by the standards of his time (like the ever ancient 20th century) he was the most backwards and despotic ruler in Europe (or in second place if you include the Ottoman Empire). He stiffled the Church and invoked his divine right to rule in an effort the thwart any reform efforts. Had he been able to reform the Russian Empire he easily could have transitioned Russia into a modern nation, rather than communism. That being said, his cult is one of selective memory of the warm and fuzzy (even pious while his population suffered under his tyranny) Nicholas. So while you claim to venerate him and remember him (as do many others), nobody is putting that into actual practice.

It is easy to venerate such "pious" men in twenty first century America.

You hit on a great point here. The Tsar's, particularly after Peter "the Great," seemed to become increasingly involved within the Church. Wasn't this (the tsar's involvement) the reason why the holy synod of the Russian Church was born? That the Patriarchate essentially just became another arm of the Tsarist state?

Apart from his faith, I admire Malcolm X the man. Regardless of the more henious tenents of Islam, to my knowledge Malcolm did not practice them.

He openly decried the fact that people who leave Islam are considered apostates who must be killed, or that Christians can't go to the city of Mecca, or that Christians cannot practice their faith in Saudi Arabia? Maybe he did and I missed it, but I can't see how you can separate him from this faith or accept that he decried intolerance in one sphere and accepted it in another.